[Paul Coleman]

WFP V Ladders! does seem a motive subject! one thing I have notice! I use WFP ONLY and what p i s s e s me off  is the ladder users taking the p i s s saying your not a real window cleaner  : Even had someone clean next door to me up a ladder shouting his mouth off   

Andy

Whenever I've bumped into a trad window cleaner while I'm working, they have been fascinated by what I do.  I've had quite a few question and answer sessions while working.  One of the things that crops up a lot is "surely the customers won't wear it?".  That was true of a few of them but most of them are fine with it.

[tatman]

Never seen a wfp cleaners doing shops in my town all the boys are trad doing shop windows. In the last 12 months bumped into loads of window cleaners doing domestic work a couple are now good mates only ever seen one wfp he was cleaning a bungalow Oh and know of one lad who does the schools etc hes wfp. How are they going to ban us all? What about roofers, airel fitters etc etc its a boring subject to be honest everyone to there own. I remember when it was illegal to record off the radio. SAY NO MORE . There will always be ladders! we all know that!

[windows_chepstow]

The The Regulations hierarchy states that you must:

Quote from the regulations:

avoid work at height where they can;

But if you can't avoid working at height, for example you've got a flat roof or leaky windows, then you can use ladders (as a last resort; there are other options to consider), but this is how ladders are meant to be used:

Quote from the regulations:

5. A portable ladder shall be prevented from slipping during use by -

(a) securing the stiles at or near their upper or lower ends;

(b) an effective anti-slip or other effective stability device; or

(c) any other arrangement of equivalent effectiveness.

So how many ladder only window cleaners tie their ladder off every time they clean and/or use a stability device (like a Rojak)?  None that I know of.  That would REALLY slow you down; tougher work too.

Shedule 6, paragraph 5 (from my above quote) effectively makes using ladders unprofitable for window cleaning if you were to do it for EVERY climb, assuming you reckon that WFP is not not practical for every 1st floor and above window to clean.

Now, I'm not being holier than thou, I'll use a ladder anyway I want to; regardless of the rules; but I do understand the regulations. 

[Paul Coleman]

The The Regulations hierarchy states that you must:

Quote from the regulations:

avoid work at height where they can;

But if you can't avoid working at height, for example you've got a flat roof or leaky windows, then you can use ladders (as a last resort; there are other options to consider), but this is how ladders are meant to be used:

Quote from the regulations:

5. A portable ladder shall be prevented from slipping during use by -

(a) securing the stiles at or near their upper or lower ends;

(b) an effective anti-slip or other effective stability device; or

(c) any other arrangement of equivalent effectiveness.

So how many ladder only window cleaners tie their ladder off every time they clean and/or use a stability device (like a Rojak)?  None that I know of.  That would REALLY slow you down; tougher work too.

Shedule 6, paragraph 5 (from my above quote) effectively makes using ladders unprofitable for window cleaning if you were to do it for EVERY climb, assuming you reckon that WFP is not not practical for every 1st floor and above window to clean.

Now, I'm not being holier than thou, I'll use a ladder anyway I want to; regardless of the rules; but I do understand the regulations. 

Thanks for digging up the actual wording Tosh.  The key word in there being OR rather than AND.  However, it is ambiguous.  It could be read as a) AND b) OR c).  Or it could also be read as a) OR b) OR c) . 
Logic tells me that it should be a) OR b) OR c) because a) AND b) would clearly be overkill but when these regs are probably formulated by people by people who would dump in their pants at the thought of climbing stairs, it does make me wonder.

[seanmcshane]

the word "or" is in there. It is a case of picking what is appropriate at the time. The classic escape clause always found in these type of coverall regulations is in section c:

"any other arrangement of equivalent effectiveness"

so, if you place a bag of sand at the bottom and can justify its effectiveness to the one in a million H+S inspector passing your way, you can quote section c and you`re covered.
You can have a colleague footing the ladder.
Dig the stiles into the grass.
Have spikes fitted to base of stiles or other anti-slip devices.
Use a stand off at the top.
There is a multitude of safety measures you can take as a justifiable interpretation of section c.

[windows_chepstow]

Philip Hanson's slant on the same thing:

Quote by Philip Hanson:

The new regs require ladders to be "secured" before use - no exceptions.  The regs spell out 3 ways to do this;

1) tying it to an existing structure

This is highlighted as the most effective method to prevent the ladder slipping (by far the most common cause of ladder accidents).  This would be practical for say a building site or scaffolding, but not really for window cleaning unless you were using a roodsafe or something like it, but that requires eyebolt installation (www.roodsafe.com - see the image at the top)

2) an effective securing device
This is something like a rojak ladder stopper, ladder leveller, etc.  The device must perform all of the necessary stabilizing functions; ie a ladder leveller will not be enough on its own if the ground is both uneven AND slippery.

3) Any other method of equal effectiveness
This includes, as an absolute last resort, footing by having someone stand on the bottom rung.  I presume the man mentioned sand bags as an 'equally effective' measure, 2 bags perhaps being the weight of a person.  The regs make a point of saying that "footing" is only permissable if the other two methods can't be employed.

The truth is, this has been on its way for some time.  You just can't put a ladder against a building anymore and clean from it.  First you have to be able to demonstrate that it wasnt possible to do it without working at height, then you have to "secure" the ladder in one of those ways.  Not doing any of them could see you land a prohibition order from the HSE, or if there was a serious breach - a prosecution.

-Philip

[windows_chepstow]

There is a multitude of safety measures you can take as a justifiable interpretation of section c.

Yes, there are, but all the ones you cited are still labour intensive, a pain to do, more work and takes time or isn't practical.

And remember, you can ONLY WORK AT HEIGHT, once you've ruled all other possibilities out.

Ladders are effectively banned.

[windows_chepstow]

If you can be bothered, have a look at a previous thread I started called:

LADDERS ARE NOT BANNED, THE DEFINITIVE POST (I THINK):

http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=10007.0#msg71341

Obviously it wasn't the definitave post, but I argued that ladders were still legal against a bright guy and was shown to be wrong.

[Ian_Giles]

This topic won't be locked, don't forget guys, there are new people coming on to the forum all the time, and it's an important subject, just because some of you are fed up with it, it doesn't mean it should be locked!
You don't have to read it or participate in the debate after all!!

Apart from which, of late a direct debate over the issues hasn't been brought up for a while..or if it has I've missed it

The ladder jocks can bleat all they like, times they are a-changing and like it or not the use of ladders to 'WORK OFF' is going to come under increasing pressure over the next year or two.
Don't get me wrong, I've worked off ladders since I was 17 years old and I'm 50 now, I think we should all be allowed to work off them if we want to, but I'm also well aware of how inherently dangerous they are to work off.

And of course in the majority of cases, where window cleaners are concerned, WFP is viable.

Never seen a wfp cleaners doing shops in my town all the boys are trad doing shop windows. In the last 12 months bumped into loads of window cleaners doing domestic work a couple are now good mates only ever seen one wfp he was cleaning a bungalow Oh and know of one lad who does the schools etc hes wfp. How are they going to ban us all? What about roofers, airel fitters etc etc its a boring subject to be honest everyone to there own. I remember when it was illegal to record off the radio. SAY NO MORE . There will always be ladders! we all know that!

I use WFP to clean the majority of my shops (and I have a lot of them) I also do bungalows with it, why? because it is faster and more effective is why (I don't say better please note).
On any buiding site roofers must have scafolding, they are not allowed to access the roof via a ladder, aerial fitters are often more of an exception due to the nature of their job, often the only practical way of doing the job is with a ladder...and it still is illegal to record of the radio!!!!

Use of ladders in all trades is coming under increasing pressure

Towns and cities with restricive parking isn't that much of a handicap either, trolleys are an effective way of countering that problem, or even a trolley with a much larger carrying capacity could be powered along the lines of a disabled buggy.

Ian

[windows_chepstow]

Thanks for digging up the actual wording Tosh.  The key word in there being OR rather than AND.  However, it is ambiguous.  It could be read as a) AND b) OR c).  Or it could also be read as a) OR b) OR c) . 
Logic tells me that it should be a) OR b) OR c) because a) AND b) would clearly be overkill ...

Exactly.  I've mentioned this previously here:

http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=10007.0#msg71341

Quote from Tosh from the above link:

The list was given as a, b, or c, indicating at least one of the criteria should be followed.  So 'b' 'effective anti-slip or other effective stability device' should be okay.  (However, it appears to be badly written.  It could read that 'a' and 'b' should always be applied at the same time, with 'c' as a woolly alternative.)

[fishman]

I work trad, please stop interferring, use your pole and shut up i am bored bored bored with the whole subject because most of the time it is started and continued by how good am i merchants who use wfp.
Good luck to you and if i want to use ladders i will until told by officials, and not someone who should be more engaged in his own business than poking his nose into others.
FOR GOODNESS SAKE BLOCK THIS RUBBISH!

[Sir Squeaky]

I agree.

Please don't assume the moderators are right, because they aren't.
Just because they were picked to police things around here doesn't mean they know any more about anything.

Just continue as you are and point and laugh in 10 years when you're still using them with no problems.

It just makes wfp users feel better.

[seanmcshane]

Tosh, the fact that it is labour intensive and may slow down the ladder user does not make them "banned"

To use a MEWP will be much more labour intensive and costly to the customer and as a result of the set up of MEWP and it`s effect on the buiding occupants and pedestrian/vehicular traffic not to mention the cost, it will almost NEVER be okayed by a domestic customer and would only ever be considered by a domestic window cleaner and offered to a customer when WFP and ladders have been ruled out. Does this mean MEWP are "effectively banned" because the use of them is timely due to the safety precautions required to use them.
No, of course not.
If a ladder user wants to abide by every dot and comma of the regs, then they may be slower but they will be safer. They will also be acting within the regs.

All the regs are designed to do is make a ladder user "consider"alternatives to ladders but if they "think" in "their" mental risk assessment that wfp is not appropriate for their work, they are perfectly entitled to use ladders as long as they do so safely and can justify to the inspector the reasons for choosing to work off a ladder and show that they have minimised risks of falling by using appropriate safety measures. (that is if they were the unfortunate 1 in a million to be questioned by an inspector)

Have you seen the impact the regs have had on Sky engineers?
Are they working in pairs off ladders?
Are they using alternatives like bucket lifts off vehicles?

No, they still use ladders but now wear a fall arrest harness which does not attach to anything and a helmet.
They work in isolation with no-one footing the ladder.
They do not use tie offs or rojaks.

In 10 years from now, there will be a whole lot of people with physical injury from use of water fed poles at height and no doubt changes in how they are used.
It will only take the first commercial window cleaning employee to file a claim against their employer for an industrial injury caused by repetitive use for the floodgates to open from other claimants.
Remember the mass of claims against the armed forces for damage to ex. servicemens hearing. Claims went back to service undertaken since 1945 or something. Solicitors were placing ads all over the place searching for anyone who had been within 50 yards of a gun going off and getting them to file a claim.
A similar thing is going on with exposure to asbestos now.

I think in the future, there is a real chance that commercial work will be carried out by MEWP and domestic work will be carried out by whatever you want to use.
There is virtually no chance of the regs being policed effectively and aside from the odd unfortunate scapegoat who may be hung out as an example to the industry, I think WFP users take the regs a bit too seriously.
I use my WFP because it is quicker and earns me more money.
I use ladders when I feel or need to use them but would never use them in a way that I felt could pose a risk to my health and safety.

[idealrob]

Tosh;

Ladders can be used:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2005/e05110.htm

The head of the department issued that statement to dispel the MYTH about a ban.
If windows on a property are liable to leak if WFP is used, then that is a site feature which will justify the use of a ladder.
Use safety devices when and where necessary.

Risk assessment? I`m not confused.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/step4.htm

you DO NOT have to write out your risk assessment if you have fewer than 5 employees.
You still do one in your mind as most people do automatically on a new job, to ensure you have identified any possible risks and take steps to minimise the chances of those risks leading to an accident.

Ladders are NOT banned
I go to a property, look at 10 aged, leaded windows on a first floor, decide that they cannot be cleaned with WFP as the site features render such use impractical in that the windows are likely to leak.
The surrounding ground areas are solid/safe to place the foot of a ladder, I use a specific window cleaning ladder with safety, rubber block attached to head of ladder. Placed correctly into the window area, the rubber block prevents sideways movement.
Each window can be safely reached from a position on the extended ladder where I will not have to reach.
Each ladder pitch will be of short duration.
I use appropriate tools to allow hands free climbing and 3 points of contact with ladder when cleaning.
I have identified risks and by using appropriate and safe equipment and procedures, minimised the risks.
I have not written the assessment down.
I have not used WFP.

Just a question , do you have a laddertag on the ladder?
Are tools fastened to your hands?
Have you considered the public in your mental risk assesment.?

idealrob



If you hate it when people state stuff that is "wrong??"
make sure you are right hey?

[windows_chepstow]

All the regs are designed to do is make a ladder user "consider"alternatives to ladders

Then why doesn't the Working at Height Directive cut out all the 'words' they use and just say, 'window cleaners should consider the alternatives'?

I fink you're wrong again.

[seanmcshane]

ideal rob, Ladder tagging is not essential for a sole trader who uses 1 ladder. It is my responsibility to check the working condition of my ladder as and when I feel it necessary. I probably check my ladder every time I climb it actually in much the same way as we automatically check the road ahead when we drive.

My applicator and squeegee are carried in a hip bucket. Neither tools are attached to my hands as I don`t work with people underneath me so any risk to the health and safety of another person from falling tools is "low" risk.
The safety measure I have in place for that possibility is to ask any person below me to move out the way and to stop working until they have moved and are no longer at risk!

The risk has now been minimised although the risk is very unlikely as I have never had it happen yet. I still consider it though.

Tosh, why am I "wrong" again?
I wasn`t "wrong" last time and you apologised for stating so.

Look at a job, consider my options:

. can WFP be used - yes, then get it out the van and use it.
. can WFP be used - no, then get the ladders off and use them.
. can neither be used - tell the owner they cannot be cleaned.

Ladders are NOT banned.

[stuart howes]

One thing is this you are DEAD a long time if you was to fall bad  (very bad)
this is why i went over to wfp you cant put a price on your life
we are all out cleaning windows to pay the bills thats it at the end of the day
it does not matter how you do it    ladder, wfp, old rag as long as the window is clean you get your money and you are still alive  what more do you need

[KarlJones]

As a newbie I find this thread most amusing.  I will also add here that I am in no way against WFP and I do intend to use it where needed.

The question was how can you justify ladders.  Then there has been a load of stuff about ladders being banned or not.  Quite interesting to me because I used to have to enforce health and safety at a big factory (not a Health and Safety officer but for some reason I had to patrol 400+ employees every day looking for folks breaking the rules.

From a company point of view, the biggest threat is from feet, hands and then back injuries.  Back injuries primarily came from lifting.  I had many a shocked face when I calculated exactly what the weight limits were for an employee to lift the way they were lifting.

I have had a bit of a go at doing a risk assesment on using a WFP.
First off, the load which can be lifted with your hands is as follows.

Hand one tend to stay around the mid section, close in to the body, if both hands did this then it would be safe to say that you could lift, once every two minutes, a weight of 25kg.  However, I note that it seems common practise to lift the other hand so the arm is extended at shoulder hieght.  This is only safe upto 10kg, I have also seen some pictures where the person has their hand at head hieght but I shall not use these for calculations due to the fact that these people lean back, and that is a big NO NO!!! (it would be 5kg btw)

So,  (hand 1 + hand 2) / 2 = (25kg+10kg) / 2 = 17.5kg  This is the absolute maximum and repeating the operation more than 30 times per hour drops the amount you can lift.  Now I have never sat and really watched someone using WFP.  However it is my guess they will be using it in some sort of up and down motion. This is repeated lifting. Do that opperation more than 12 times a minute and the amount you are allowed to lift drops by a whacking 80%!!!

In this case that would be 3.5kg MAX

I also am guessing that you would twist your body a few degrees whilst doing this up and down motion this also reduces the amount you are allowed to lift. Now, none of this takes in to consideration the fact that newtons laws state that the pole will be a damn sight heavier when extended than when collapsed, and it would not supprise me at all if they were over the legal lifting limit (I have heard a few people state that they ache after using them). 

I find it quite ironic, that some folks seem to think that falls are a priority for the the HSE,  their is rounghly 10 injuries from handling incorrectly compared to everyone from a fall.  Now the regulations on lifting say that you must do everything you can to reduce the load you lift.  It also says that you should, where possible, reduce the frequency that you do repeated lifts as it is a fact that doing a lifting type of action over and over again can make you more prone to an injury.

So, in answer to the original question, of how can you justify a ladder in a risk assessment...

A ladder when used correctly adds variation you your job.  This in turn reduces the risk of injury due to the reapeated manual lifting of a WFP.

A ladder with safety devices should be used, in my opinion, if it is the safest way to do a job and you must include the risk of repeated manual lifting of a pole in the risk assesment.  A WFP should be used when it is not safe to use a ladder.  You should not lift if there is a safe way to do the job by some other means.  That is the law.

[john_linden]

What about the repeated lifting and carrying of your ladders?  They're much heavier and awkaward than a pole.  I've had a couple of back aches myself from carrying a pair of trade doubles aroung all day.  Probly the worst injury your likely to get from a pole is neck ache.  But if you fall off you ladder your likely to be badly injured or killed.

john

[KarlJones]

Oh not sure about neck ache being the worst injury you could have from over lifting.

Yes you are exactly right, you must factor in the weight of the ladders and do not lift them up and down more than 30 times per hour. 

I should clarify that I was not saying ladders are better than WFP,  or visa versa.  I was trying to show how you can justify the use of ladders in a risk assesment.  It is about variation thats all. 

If you do a manual job year in year out, eventually it will take its toll.  You should try to add variation into the job where possible.

It is about balancing the risks and using one set of risks to off set another.   This is exactly why I intend to use both ladders (safe as I can) and WFP.  Do a correct risk assesment and you should never fall from a ladder or suffer from repetative strain injuries or over lifting injuries caused by WFP or ladder work. 

I like the work at hieght reg's,  the fact we all sit here chatting about it means that it is doing exactly what it was supposed to do.  It makes us think about our safety, it makes us adjust the way we look at the risks and purchase safety devices.  It will save lives no matter if people switch to WFP or not.  It bothers me slightly that people give up a ladder completely and go 100% WFP as I feel they are ignoring the power of RSI, and it is way way more than a pain in the neck, it can stick you in a wheel chair and it can easily take your business away from you in a very short space of time.

  However as you correctly state it reduces their risk of death to almost zero. 

Doing ground floor windows with WFP "if" there is virtually no real reason seems a bit like playing with RSI. 
Doing all 1st floor windows with WFP "if" it is safe to use a ladder seems like playing with RSI too. 
Ignoring WFP and brushing it off as "not worth investing in" is playing with injury and death.

"safety first, profit second" is worth sticking on the inside of your door so you see it whenever you leave the house.

The HSE wanted to reduce the number of accidents due to falls.  It seems obvious from things they have said that this was all they intended to do.  They did not have a desire to increase the number of RSI injuries.  We should all think a bit like the HSE and try to reduce risks of injury and death from falls, but we should not increase our risk of RSI.

balance is what is needed.